Supreme Dismiss the Peyan indictment, which received 3157 euros in damages from the Communist after being bitten

Such a decision was made on June 9, 2021, by the Supreme College, led by Sculri Sylejmani, with members Muhamet Rexha and Besir Islami. The latter have approved the revision of the Peja municipality's representative, lawyer Drita Sopi-Gashi, and have rejected the prosecution's demand in all, reports “Justice Vowing”.

Even though plaintiff Seniha Genadini had won compensation of 3,157 euros from the Pec Foundation Court, the ruling, which was later confirmed by the second instance, her indictment was dropped by the Supreme Court, with the reason that the dog who had bitten the plaintiff was not proven to be a wanderer.

In the concrete case, the plaintiff did not prove that he was bitten by stray dogs. She himself in the indictment noted that by November 22, 2016, she was bitten by a dog in her backyard, about 10:00 p.m., where, according to the Supreme Court's assessment, the plaintiff did not testify that she was bitten by stray dogs”, says the Supreme Court's reasoning.

This court argues that the verdicts of the Peja Court and Appeals, which were in favour of the plaintiff, had been decided in the wrong application of material rights.

The dog that bit him may have had the owner, and the dog's owner could answer by Article 163 of LMD, then he might be the neighbor's, but he might also be the plaintiff or her family, but he might even be a hobo, none of these facts have been proven. Furthermore, it has not been proved how that dog was found in its court on the critical night, whether the court of the siege-walled prosecution was surrounded or something similar, where all these facts are of crucial importance for determining the responsibility of the indictee to compensate for the damage in the concrete case”, is said further in the Supreme Reason.

According to the Supreme Court, if the plaintiff had been bitten by stray dogs, the Peja Community would have been responsible, reports the “Justice Trust”.

“If the accuser on the street had been bitten by stray dogs, it would have been about the community's eventual responsibility, but under the current concrete circumstances the responsibility for paying compensation to the prosecution for its bite by an unknown dog in its court, for the time being it could not be attributed to the indictee as responsibility”, says the Supreme Reason.

The Constitutional Court in Pec, on November 8, 2018, had approved the indictment of plaintiff Seniha Genadini, with which the Pec Commission was obliged to compensate for 3,157 euros in the name of compensation for material damage and not material for being a wanderer's bite in Pec.

The first degree of judgment was confirmed by the Court of Appeals on January 21, this year.